From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 4 12:55:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d68.as5.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.137.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA2B37B419 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g352sVUH064537; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:54:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g352sR3k064534; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:54:29 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:54:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: John Regehr , Julian Elischer , Subject: Re: Linuxthreads on Linux vs FreeBSD performance question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020404205255.W63621-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, John Regehr wrote: > > There does not appear to be a statistically significant difference > > between a native binary and an emulated Linux binary. > > Wouldn't the only place you'd notice slight overhead be syscalls? > > Zwane > > -- > http://function.linuxpower.ca In theory, that should be the case. However, he's probably using a different compiler, and glibc might act differently than libc. Since he's trying to draw conclusions, it was certainly worth checking to see if there was a difference between native & emulation. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message